Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.

Looks good but I'm surely not the only one that feels like PhysX potential has been squandered by NVIDIA due to it not being fully supported by AMD cards (software, yes, but not hardware). As such there's little reason for developers to use it which is a shame as with better optimization and more support it would have been nice to have had as an extra in PC games not just one or two per year.

Not overly impressed with add on GPU PhysX effects anymore, can't help feeling it looks tacked on and slightly distracting and over the top.

Waiting more for PhysX 3 games where the GPU enhances the engine, rather than trying to force modern features onto an old physics engine.

Not that i believe they shouldn't bother, 50% is actually alot when you consider that only 10% of gamers see any PC specific effects, and i doubt many would say there is no point creating high res textures would they?

I've been using physx with my 5870 i had before, without any flaws at all.
So i don't see the problem here.

Click to expand...

That's because the Physx ran on the CPU, not GPU. The Physx effects level may have been set lower.

Physx was deliberately designed to run poor on CPU to highlight the advantages of GPU Physx. This has been partially rectified with Physx 3 because Nvidia got caught out by using pure unoptimised code for CPU, but I doubt even with Physx 3 that it is highly optimised (SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, FMA4, XOP) etc, since Physx 3 is only SSE2).FMA4, XOP are AMD only on Bulldozer and later CPU'sAVX2, FMA3 are upcoming instruction sets on the Haswell processors

Physx on GPU means you are taking GPU time away from actual graphics, so the benefits of GPU based Physx depends purely on how the game utilises the CPU. A properly designed game should realistically be GPU oriented, and in this case highly optimised CPU based Physx wouldn't be bad for performance.

But to answer the question why AMD doesn't have Physx, it is two-fold. AMD did have the chance, but they would have had to have the Nvidia logo on their boxes etc when sold... something very bad considering it is a direct competitor! The other reason is licencing costs, it would have cost AMD a lot of money just to support Physx.

The other point is Physx isn't the only option out there, it is just one of the more developed optioned. You also have OpenCL (cross platform) and Directcompute (Microsoft). I have a small suspicion that at least some level of physics processing will be available on the next gen Xbox using Directcompute, meaning that for Windows games Directcompute will be the future.

The closeness of the next gen Xbox to a PC could have both positive and negative effects. The positive effect would be, supposedly, that all Xbox games will be available on Windows. The negative effect will be direct ports, such that there really won't be any graphical improvement etc for the PC version. The latter would be very bad! but if the platforms are similar, it should make it easier for developers to make the PC version even better.

The reason why this is relevant is that if it is the case, basically no game developed for the next gen Xbox and ported will utilise Physx.

The last line is based on what though?
UE4 if anything like UE3 will likely be the most used engine on next gen consoles, so alot of next gen Xbox games will utilise PhysX, and that is just from one engine alone.

Yes.. Destruction particles looked ok, not overdone, but optimization is still not it.

Physx3 is also a bit questionable.
For example in Warframe (Scifi coop game) it uses apex turbulence, but again its not so groundbreaking like nvidia said it would be - multi core, sse2 and all that fancy talk (maybe its ~10-15% faster compared to physx2)

btw, Hawken started ok, avg. ~55-65fps (ultra setting, 1080p, gpu usage ~ 80-90%), but every respawn it went lower and lower to min ~ 30-40fps at end (gpu ~ 50-60%). Same thing in DM, although it wasn't so bad like in capture the points.

Makes the game look better, I like the real-time twirling with the particles on the energy collectors, although the embers could have been done better. Would of been nice to see sph fluids for oil leaks though.

I don't think out of place and overdone particle affects makes a game better.

PhysX will forever be a gimmick and a waste of performance.

Click to expand...

Right, like better shadows, AA, AO and other effects in video options within games. I'll take real-time simulations over scripted anytime.
The destruction looks good, you have a point with the turbulence though it does seem overdone.

Most PC specific visual features are considered gimmicks by most people, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be explored.

I will admit i'm not a fan of the overdone particle stuff, but physics in games needs a kick up the arse, everything else visually has progressed alot over the years, physics on the other hand is still all over the place, and it's still the scripted stuff being the most impressive looking.

Not saying PhysX is what will take it forward, but it's better than nothing.